Canon - Give us 400/5.6L IS NOW!!

[NancyP]

The people who shoot 300 f/2.8L IS and 400 f/4D DO IS are shooting at f/2.8 or f/4, that's why they pay the big bucks.

 

[mackguyver]

I wanted won for many years, but gave up waiting. Luckily during that time I was saving up for a 300 f/2.8 IS II. If it was today, I'd probably buy at 400 DO II, but I'm happy with the lens. I really miss being able to pack a 400mm lens in a small bag, however, so the 100-400 II may be on my list sometime down the road.

 

[AlanF]

The people who shoot 300 f/2.8L IS and 400 f/4D DO IS are shooting at f/2.8 or f/4, that's why they pay the big bucks.

And 600 f/5.6 and 800 f/8 with the 2xTC III, which is a huge attraction of these lenses. The thought of a hand-holdable 800mm makes me drool.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.

+1, with the new 100-400mm II available and good performance, I don't see much need of releasing a new 400/5.6L

 

[YuengLinger]

Moot point now!

 

[pierrebird]

+100 with Stein
I am mostly shooting birds while actively birdwatching (not sitting in a blind with a tripod for hours).
I don't need/want a zoom, I have no use for a 400/500/600 weighing more than 1,5kg, price being irrelevant.
I want a 400/5,6 IS I can carry around while running around using my binoculars and carrying my spotting scope.
The only option right now is the 400/5,6 (no IS, old lens) or the 300/4 IS (loss in IQ, old IS)….
So I think the 400/5,6 IS is overdue )))

 

[AlanF]

+100 with Stein
I am mostly shooting birds while actively birdwatching (not sitting in a blind with a tripod for hours).
I don't need/want a zoom, I have no use for a 400/500/600 weighing more than 1,5kg, price being irrelevant.
I want a 400/5,6 IS I can carry around while running around using my binoculars and carrying my spotting scope.
The only option right now is the 400/5,6 (no IS, old lens) or the 300/4 IS (loss in IQ, old IS)….
So I think the 400/5,6 IS is overdue )))

I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?

 

[Don Haines]

What is wrong with people?

If someone wants a 400F5.6 prime, what's wrong with that? The old version was/is a very nice lens and it has a loyal following. It sold well.... not as well as the 100-400 mark I did, but certainly well enough to stay in production for 20 years... but then again, when the ranges overlap zooms always outsell primes..... and for some strange reason Canon keeps on producing primes.

Canon has been upgrading their long primes to Mark II versions.... this is the last one to go. When it happens, I expect that the new version will sell quite well. I know I will get one. BTW, I have a 150-600 already. Yes, it covers the same range as a 400F5.6 prime would, but zoom lenses and primes are two different beasts and there is a need/market for both. Just because you don't want one or would be happy with a zoom does not mean that everyone would.

 

[YuengLinger]

+100 with Stein
I am mostly shooting birds while actively birdwatching (not sitting in a blind with a tripod for hours).
I don't need/want a zoom, I have no use for a 400/500/600 weighing more than 1,5kg, price being irrelevant.
I want a 400/5,6 IS I can carry around while running around using my binoculars and carrying my spotting scope.
The only option right now is the 400/5,6 (no IS, old lens) or the 300/4 IS (loss in IQ, old IS)….
So I think the 400/5,6 IS is overdue )))

I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?

Boy, I love straight talk. +1!

 

[Don Haines]

+100 with Stein
I am mostly shooting birds while actively birdwatching (not sitting in a blind with a tripod for hours).
I don't need/want a zoom, I have no use for a 400/500/600 weighing more than 1,5kg, price being irrelevant.
I want a 400/5,6 IS I can carry around while running around using my binoculars and carrying my spotting scope.
The only option right now is the 400/5,6 (no IS, old lens) or the 300/4 IS (loss in IQ, old IS)….
So I think the 400/5,6 IS is overdue )))

I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?

Boy, I love straight talk. +1!

And I single pass portage my camping gear, food, and a cedar-canvas canoe..... and I like the lighter 400F5.6

 

[candc]

+100 with Stein
I am mostly shooting birds while actively birdwatching (not sitting in a blind with a tripod for hours).
I don't need/want a zoom, I have no use for a 400/500/600 weighing more than 1,5kg, price being irrelevant.
I want a 400/5,6 IS I can carry around while running around using my binoculars and carrying my spotting scope.
The only option right now is the 400/5,6 (no IS, old lens) or the 300/4 IS (loss in IQ, old IS)….
So I think the 400/5,6 IS is overdue )))

I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?

Boy, I love straight talk. +1!

And I single pass portage my camping gear, food, and a cedar-canvas canoe..... and I like the lighter 400F5.6

Can you take pictures while you are portaging?

 

[DominoDude]

^ Looks at the photo above and thinks a suitable caption could be: "Under the canoe-py"

 

[pierrebird]

I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?

I think you are missing my point… Here is what The-Digital-Picture review says about the new 100-400 IS II versus the "venerable" 400/5.6 :

…The 400 f/5.6L has been in the Canon lineup for 5 years longer than the original 100-400 L IS, yet it is a very good performing lens with image quality essentially equivalent to the 100-400 L II and less distortion (compared at 400mm). The 400 f/5.6L is lighter, longer and considerably less expensive, but this lens is sorely missing image stabilization. I find the zoom to be a far more useful lens…

So…. a "new" 400/5.6 with IS would be a far more usable lens to me (and a few others )

 

[AlanF]

I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?

I think you are missing my point… Here is what The-Digital-Picture review says about the new 100-400 IS II versus the "venerable" 400/5.6 :

…The 400 f/5.6L has been in the Canon lineup for 5 years longer than the original 100-400 L IS, yet it is a very good performing lens with image quality essentially equivalent to the 100-400 L II and less distortion (compared at 400mm). The 400 f/5.6L is lighter, longer and considerably less expensive, but this lens is sorely missing image stabilization. I find the zoom to be a far more useful lens…

So…. a "new" 400/5.6 with IS would be a far more usable lens to me (and a few others )

The last sentence you quote is: "I find the zoom to be a far more useful lens. " Just place yourself in Canon Marketing: a "far more useful lens" is going to sell far more than a "far less useful lens" of similar price. So, methinks you are going to have a very long wait for Canon to produce a new 400mm f/5.6 II with IS. Having said that, if they did produce one at reasonable price and it was much sharper than the zoom, I would buy one. But, I am not going hold my breath, and I am already having great fun with the exceptional 100-400mm II.

 

[takesome1]

I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?

I think you are missing my point… Here is what The-Digital-Picture review says about the new 100-400 IS II versus the "venerable" 400/5.6 :

…The 400 f/5.6L has been in the Canon lineup for 5 years longer than the original 100-400 L IS, yet it is a very good performing lens with image quality essentially equivalent to the 100-400 L II and less distortion (compared at 400mm). The 400 f/5.6L is lighter, longer and considerably less expensive, but this lens is sorely missing image stabilization. I find the zoom to be a far more useful lens…

So…. a "new" 400/5.6 with IS would be a far more usable lens to me (and a few others )

Yes a new 400 f/5.6 with 4 stops of IS would be far more useable from my point of view. Especially if it has a true 400mm length unlike the 100- almost 400mm II.

 

[Don Haines]

Can you take pictures while you are portaging?

Surprisingly, I have never taken a still DIGITAL picture while portaging the canoe. Got a few Kodachrome slides and have shot video with a p/s several times, but nothing with a digital SLR.

Nice looking canoe.... Western Red cedar planking? .... and is that the end of a half rib I see? Not to many build with them, but it sure makes kneeling a lot more comfortable...

Think I will start a new thread.... my canoe...

 

[candc]

I agree you should start that thread. Its an American Traders "Trader" it's a really nice wood/epoxy flatwater canoe. The half ribs are good for kneeling and setting your beer down. I have a couple smaller American traders canoes which I also like but my favorite is this chestnut prospector. Bill Mason would approve?

 

[AlanF]

I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?

I think you are missing my point… Here is what The-Digital-Picture review says about the new 100-400 IS II versus the "venerable" 400/5.6 :

…The 400 f/5.6L has been in the Canon lineup for 5 years longer than the original 100-400 L IS, yet it is a very good performing lens with image quality essentially equivalent to the 100-400 L II and less distortion (compared at 400mm). The 400 f/5.6L is lighter, longer and considerably less expensive, but this lens is sorely missing image stabilization. I find the zoom to be a far more useful lens…

So…. a "new" 400/5.6 with IS would be a far more usable lens to me (and a few others )

Yes a new 400 f/5.6 with 4 stops of IS would be far more useable from my point of view. Especially if it has a true 400mm length unlike the 100- almost 400mm II.

The focal length of the 400mm f/5.6 L at its minimal focal distance of 3500mm is 375mm. Both the 400mm f/5.6 L and the 100-400mm II reach their quoted 400mm only at long distances, not short.

 

[Finn M]

I would be interested in a 400mm f/5.6L IS, but I know the price would be higher than I want to pay. I like my Tamron 150-600mm and it is a good value. However, its weight is bothering me more often. A 400mm lightweight lens for around $900-1000 used would be great. Well, that is what the current 400mm f/5.6L is, but the lack of IS scared me off. I ended up buying a used 300mm f/4L IS that fit my budget. I will pair it up with a 1.4x III extender I already have. Hopefully this will produce decent image quality.

Why didn't you buy a secondhand EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS mk.I instead!?
It has IS, it has better IQ than the 300 + 1,4x Extender and it costs about $ 900-1000 used. And you get zoom as a bonus.....

 

[RGF]

Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.

+1

Or you could wait...

I just got the 100-400 II and it is a great lens. Makes a 400 F5.6 hardly desirable